DOCSLIB.ORG

Challenging the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Challenging the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism Last updated: August 9, 2021 Challenging the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism Date Headline/Link Source/author(s) Excerpt 9 Against the IHRA: Why it’s TriBune Magazine (UK)/Julia Bard “The IHRA Working DefiniAon is finally unravelling, But over the last five years it has set August Time to Adopt the Back the real fight against anAsemiAsm. We have a lot of work to do to replace it, to end 2021 Jerusalem DeclaraAon its use in weaponising anA-Jewish racism, and to reBuild alliances and solidarity with other minoriAes. The Jerusalem DeclaraAon on AnAsemiAsm, on the other hand, has presented us with an opportunity to strengthen the fight against racism everywhere, including the vital challenge to anAsemiAsm which has Been so ill-served By the IHRA Working DefiniAon. If we seize this opportunity, we can also ensure that it is used to create crucial space for progressive campaigners to understand and contriBute to the liberaAon of the peoples of PalesAne and Israel.” 27 July Biden’s pick for The Forward/Kenneth Stern “Unfortunately, as I tesAfied Before Congress in 2017 and wrote in a recent Book, the 2021 anAsemiAsm envoy will working definiAon has Been primarily used (and I argue, grossly abused) to suppress and need to answer these chill pro-PalesAnian speech, starAng on campus in 2010, and then more Broadly…As I tough quesAons and many others have wri\en — no one more eloquently than Joe Cohn of the FoundaAon for Individual Rights in EducaAon — there already exists a tendency of the poliAcal right and the poliAcal le` to censor and chill poliAcal opponents. A definiAon applied like IHRA, as one reviewer of my Book pointed out in criAcism of my role, has a clear effect: ‘[I]f you give witch hunters a manual for the discovery of witchcra` they will find witches.’ IHRA’s zealous supporters o`en say that to comBat anAsemiAsm, one has to define it. In my view, that simply isn’t true. DefiniAons are useful for data collectors, But it’s not as if people didn’t fight anAsemiAsm Before the definiAon was created over 16 years ago.” 8 July The Zionist assault on The Israeli Commi\ee Against Home DemoliAons (ICHAD)/ “It is clear that the actual menace of anAsemiAsm Bothers Israel less than criAcism of its 2021 Judaism Jeff Haler policies. By focusing so narrowly on Israel, weaponized anAsemiAsm lets real anA- Semites off the hook. Evangelicals who teach that at Armageddon Jews either die or are converted to ChrisAanity, But who are “pro-Israel” Because they need Israel to Bring about the End of Days. Or classic European anA-Semites like Hungary’s Viktor OrBan or Poland’s Andrzej Duda who support Israel Because they see it as the kind of ethnically exclusive society they aspire to impose on their own countries, to which we might add the likes of Modi in India. By contrast, the BriAsh Labour Party, kowtowing to Israel and the organized Jewish community, expels or suspends prominent Jewish memBers criAcal of Israel.” 7 July UniversiAes - the new Labour Briefing (UK)/Jonathan Rosenlead “The struggle for free speech on Israel/ PalesAne is at a criAcal stage. It could go either 2021 ba\lefield in the way. UniversiAes’ willingness to take their staff and students through disciplinary anAsemiAsm wars processes for things they teach or write or tweet about Zionism, se\ler colonialism or apartheid, affects more than those directly involved. Just as in the Labour Party, people Become unsure what it is permi\ed to say, and many decide it is Be\er not to say anything at all. The chilling effect is the weapon of mass silencing. That is why the current phase of the campus Ba\le against imposiAon of the IHRA definiAon is so crucial.” Author: Lara Friedman, Foundation for Middle East Peace Page 1 of 49 Last updated: August 9, 2021 Date Headline/Link Source/author(s) Excerpt 14 June AnA-Zionism, INSS/Kenneth Stern “The weaponizaAon of the ‘working definiAon’ of anAsemiAsm and the asserAon that 2021 AnAsemiAsm, and the anA-Zionism is anAsemiAsm as US government policy (Kushner, 2019) clearly show that Fallacy of Bright Lines not all such allegaAons are wrong or made in Bad faith. Let us not forget that this scarlet le\er ‘A’ was advocated By the Trump administraAon against groups like Amnesty InternaAonal and Human Rights Watch (with potenAal implicaAons for their funding) (Toosi, 2020). Let us not ignore that some pro-Israel acAvists champion the chilling effect of the anAsemiAsm charge as a good thing (Marcus, 2013). The Simon Wiesenthal Center even says that the ‘working definiAon’ of anAsemiAsm should Be used to Bar ‘Israel Apartheid Week’ on college campuses (Simon Wiesenthal Center, 2017). Meanwhile, many mainstream Jewish groups not only remain silent about such efforts But conAnue to insist that the use of the ‘working definiAon’ in this witch-hunt fashion does not restrict free speech.” 6 June Stephen Sedley: Former Lord JusAce of Appeal and Judge ad hoc of the “It is now five years since the InternaAonal Holocaust RememBrance Alliance (the IHRA) 2021 Statement on IHRA European Court of Human Rights; past visiAng professor of puBlished what it called “a non-legally Binding working definiAon of anA-semiAsm”. It is law, Oxford University. a clumsy piece of dra`ing disAnguished By two parAcular features: it fails the first test of any definiAon By Being open-ended and indefinite; and it is accompanied By examples some of which are visiBly designed to protect Israel from legiAmate criAcism. “ 10 May PalesAnian lives ma\er, The OBserver (student paper of notre Dame, Saint Mary’s, “One of these controversial IHRA’s illustraAons reads that anAsemiAsm amounts to 2021 too &Holy Cross)/Atalia Omer, professor of religion, conflict and “[d]enying the Jewish people their right to self-determinaAon, e.g., By claiming that the peace studies existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” If this illustraAon appears to you as self-evidently anAsemiAc, you need to check your ethical Blinders. What this illustraAon does not menAon is that the fulfillment of the “right to self-determinaAon” for Jews entailed the ethnic cleansing of the PalesAnians. This is not “an opinion” But a historical fact established By Israeli and PalesAnian historians as well as, of course, By the intergeneraAonal memories of the people who resist amnesia in refugee camps and the diasporas. Indeed, the real story is who is omi\ed from IHRA and why and whose agenda does it serve?” 27 April Le\er: UMass should not Le\er to the Massachuse\s Daily Collegian/Jon Blum & “despite the good intenAons of those seeking to adjudicate cases of anAsemiAsm, the 2021 adopt the IHRA definiAon Sonya Epstein IHRA definiAon has increasingly Been used By Pro-Israel groups to advance their own of anAsemiAsm agendas in the name of fighAng anAsemiAsm. The definiAon includes examples which conflate criAques of the State of Israel and anA-Zionism with anAsemiAsm, a move that could suppress PalesAnian liBeraAon acAvism. For example, StandWithUs cited the definiAon in a 2019 case which sought to Ban the Fordham chapter of Students for JusAce in PalesAne (SJP). Among other examples, it is clear that this definiAon is acAvely being used to sAfle free speech in an effort to silence PalesAne solidarity acAvists. Kenneth Stern, one of the leading authors of the 2005 working definiAon has repeatedly spoken out against this adopAon of the IHRA definiAon Because of the way it has Been weaponized against pro-PalesAne speech.” Author: Lara Friedman, Foundation for Middle East Peace Page 2 of 49 Last updated: August 9, 2021 Date Headline/Link Source/author(s) Excerpt 23 April THE POLITICS OF A Jamie Stern-Weiner, PhD candidate, Wolfson College, “It has Been claimed that the InternaAonal Holocaust RememBrance Alliance (IHRA) 2021 DEFINITIOn - How the University of Oxford Working DefiniAon of AnAsemiAsm, ‘including its 11 examples’, reflects an internaAonal IHRA Working DefiniAon consensus of anAsemiAsm experts. This report, Based on my doctoral research at the of AnAsemiAsm Is Being Also see: IHRA ‘misrepresents’ own definiAon of anA- University of Oxford, exposes that claim as untrue: 1)There is no expert consensus Misrepresented SemiAsm, says report (Al Jazeera); How the IHRA supporAng the Working DefiniAon. 2)IHRA’s decision-making Body, the Plenary, did not anAsemiAsm definiAon Became a pro-Israel cudgel adopt any examples of ‘anAsemiAsm’ as part of its Working DefiniAon. 3)Senior IHRA (MondoWeiss) officials and pro-Israel groups have misrepresented the IHRA Plenary’s decision in order to smuggle into the Working DefiniAon examples that can Be used to protect Israel from criAcism. 4)These examples have Been used, in pracAce, to censor Israel’s criAcs.” 22 April If I am only for myself, VashA/Rivkah Brown interviews Professor David Feldman “The [IHRA] working definiAon has Been widely adopted. For many organisaAons, the 2021 who am I? Professor (director of the InsAtute for the Study of AnAsemiAsm act of adopAon Became a convenient symBol of their opposiAon to anAsemiAsm. But David Feldman on the (formerly the Pears InsAtute) at BirkBeck, University of the definiAon is not only a symBol: it is also intended to Be an operaAonal and Jerusalem DeclaraAon on London since its founding in 2010) educaAonal document. This is where proBlems arise, and why it has Been important for AnAsemiAsm us to offer an alternaAve. The working definiAon points to the fact that criAcism of Israel and Zionism can Become the sevng for anAsemiAsm; seven of its 11 examples deal with this. But it is in its imprecise dealing with this thorny issue that the working definiAon’s authors created a proBlem.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism Cosmopolitan Reflections
    Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism Cosmopolitan Reflections David Hirsh Department of Sociology, Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, London SE14 6NW, UK The Working Papers Series is intended to initiate discussion, debate and discourse on a wide variety of issues as it pertains to the analysis of antisemitism, and to further the study of this subject matter. Please feel free to submit papers to the ISGAP working paper series. Contact the ISGAP Coordinator or the Editor of the Working Paper Series, Charles Asher Small. Working Paper Hirsh 2007 ISSN: 1940-610X © Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy ISGAP 165 East 56th Street, Second floor New York, NY 10022 United States Office Telephone: 212-230-1840 www.isgap.org ABSTRACT This paper aims to disentangle the difficult relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. On one side, antisemitism appears as a pressing contemporary problem, intimately connected to an intensification of hostility to Israel. Opposing accounts downplay the fact of antisemitism and tend to treat the charge as an instrumental attempt to de-legitimize criticism of Israel. I address the central relationship both conceptually and through a number of empirical case studies which lie in the disputed territory between criticism and demonization. The paper focuses on current debates in the British public sphere and in particular on the campaign to boycott Israeli academia. Sociologically the paper seeks to develop a cosmopolitan framework to confront the methodological nationalism of both Zionism and anti-Zionism. It does not assume that exaggerated hostility to Israel is caused by underlying antisemitism but it explores the possibility that antisemitism may be an effect even of some antiracist forms of anti- Zionism.
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Report by Professor Richard Evans (2000)
    Expert Report by Professor Richard Evans (2000) IRVING VS. (1) LIPSTADT AND (2) PENGUIN BOOKS EXPERT WITNESS REPORT BY RICHARD J. EVANS FBA Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge Warning: This title page does not belong to the original report. The original report starts on the second page which is to be considered page number 1. IRVING VS. (1) LIPSTADT AND (2) PENGUIN BOOKS EXPERT W ITNESS REPORT BY RICHARD J. EVANS FBA Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge Contents 1. Introduction 3 1.1 Purpose of this Report 3 1.2 Material Instructions 4 1.3 Author of the Report 4 1.4 Curriculum vitae 9 1.5 Methods used to draw up this Report 14 1.6 Argument and structure of the Report 19 2. Irving the historian 26 2.1 Publishing career 26 2.2 Qualifications 28 2.3 Professional historians and archival research 29 2.4 Documents and sources 35 2.5 Reputation 41 2.6 Conclusion 64 3. Irving and Holocaust denial66 3.1 Definitions of ‘The Holocaust’ 67 3.2 Holocaust denial 77 3.3 The arguments before the court 87 (a) Lipstadt’s allegations and Irving’s replies 87 (b) The 1977 edition of Hitler’s War 89 (c) The 1991 edition of Hitler’s War 92 (d) Irving’s biography of Hermann Göring 100 (e) Conclusion 103 3.4 Irving and the central tenets of Holocaust denial 106 (a) Numbers of Jews killed 106 (b) Use of gas chambers 126 (c) Systematic nature of the extermination 134 (d) Evidence for the Holocaust 140 (e) Conclusion 173 3.5 Connections with Holocaust deniers 174 (a) The Institute for Historical Review 174 (b) Other Holocaust deniers 190 3.6 Conclusion 200 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Holocaust-Denial Literature: a Fourth Bibliography
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Publications and Research York College 2000 Holocaust-Denial Literature: A Fourth Bibliography John A. Drobnicki CUNY York College How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/yc_pubs/25 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Holocaust-Denial Literature: A Fourth Bibliography John A. Drobnicki This bibliography is a supplement to three earlier ones published in the March 1994, Decem- ber 1996, and September 1998 issues of the Bulletin of Bibliography. During the intervening time. Holocaust revisionism has continued to be discussed both in the scholarly literature and in the mainstream press, especially owing to the libel lawsuit filed by David Irving against Deb- orah Lipstadt and Penguin Books. The Holocaust deniers, who prefer to call themselves “revi- sionists” in an attempt to gain scholarly legitimacy, have refused to go away and remain as vocal as ever— Bradley R. Smith has continued to send revisionist advertisements to college newspapers (including free issues of his new publication. The Revisionist), generating public- ity for his cause. Holocaust-denial, which will be used interchangeably with Holocaust revisionism in this bib- liography, is a body of literature that seeks to “prove” that the Jewish Holocaust did not hap- pen. Although individual revisionists may have different motives and beliefs, they all share at least one point: that there was no systematic attempt by Nazi Germany to exterminate Euro- pean Jewry.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Antisemitism Rosh Hashanah 5780 September 29, 2019 Rabbi David
    Antisemitism Rosh Hashanah 5780 September 29, 2019 Rabbi David Stern Tonight marks my thirty-first High Holidays at Temple Emanu-El, a huge blessing in my life. In thirty-one years of high holiday sermons, you have been very forgiving, and I have addressed a diverse array of topics: from our internal spiritual journeys to Judaism’s call for justice in the world; relationship and forgiveness, immigration and race, prayer and faith, loving Israel and loving our neighbors; birth and death and just about everything in between in this messy, frustrating, promising, profound, sacred realm we call life. Except -- in thirty-one years as a Jewish leader, I have not given a single High Holiday sermon about antisemitism.1 References, allusions, a pointed paragraph here and there, yes. But in three decades of High Holiday sermons spanning the end of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first centuries, not a single one about antisemitism. I’m hoping that doesn’t constitute professional malpractice, but it is strange. So I’ve asked myself why. Reason #1: I had almost no experience of antisemitism growing up. With one limited exception, I never even experienced name-calling, let alone any physical incident. All four of my grandparents were born in America, and our story was the classic trajectory of American Jewish integration and success. 1 Professor Deborah E. Lipstadt makes a compelling argument for this spelling. Lipstadt rejects the hyphen in the more conventional “Anti-Semitism” because it implies that whatever lies to the right of the hyphen exists as an independent entity.
    [Show full text]
  • Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002 - 2003
    Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002 - 2003 Based on information by the National Focal Points of the RAXEN Information Network Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002 – 2003 Based on information by the National Focal Points of the EUMC - RAXEN Information Network EUMC - Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002 - 2003 2 EUMC – Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002 – 2003 Foreword Following concerns from many quarters over what seemed to be a serious increase in acts of antisemitism in some parts of Europe, especially in March/April 2002, the EUMC asked the 15 National Focal Points of its Racism and Xenophobia Network (RAXEN) to direct a special focus on antisemitism in its data collection activities. This comprehensive report is one of the outcomes of that initiative. It represents the first time in the EU that data on antisemitism has been collected systematically, using common guidelines for each Member State. The national reports delivered by the RAXEN network provide an overview of incidents of antisemitism, the political, academic and media reactions to it, information from public opinion polls and attitude surveys, and examples of good practice to combat antisemitism, from information available in the years 2002 – 2003. On receipt of these national reports, the EUMC then asked an independent scholar, Dr Alexander Pollak, to make an evaluation of the quality and availability of this data on antisemitism in each country, and identify problem areas and gaps. The country-by-country information provided by the 15 National Focal Points, and the analysis by Dr Pollak, form Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of this report respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Irving V. Penguin UK and Deborah Lipstadt: Building a Defense
    Nova Law Review Volume 27, Issue 2 2002 Article 3 Irving v. Penguin UK and Deborah Lipstadt: Building a Defense Deborah Lipstadt∗ ∗ Copyright c 2002 by the authors. Nova Law Review is produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress). https://nsuworks.nova.edu/nlr Lipstadt: Irving v. Penguin UK and Deborah Lipstadt: Building a Defense Irving v. Penguin UK and Deborah Lipstadt: Building a Defense Strategy, an Essay by Deborah Lipstadt In September 1996, I received a letter from the British publisher of my book, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory,' informing me that David Irving had filed a Statement of Case with the Royal High Court in London indicating his intention to sue me for libel for calling him a Holocaust denier in my book. 2 When I first learned of his plans to do this, I was surprised. Irving had called the Holocaust a "legend." In 1988, the Canadian government had charged a German emigre, Ernst Ztndel, with promoting Holocaust denial. Irving, who had testified on behalf of the defense at this trial, told the court that there was no "overall Reich policy to kill the Jews," that "no documents whatsoever show that a Holocaust had * Dr. Deborah E. Lipstadt is Dorot Professor of Modem Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University in Atlanta where she directs the Institute for Jewish Studies. Her book DENYING THE HOLOCAUST: THE GROWING ASSAULT ON TRUTH AND MEMORY (1993) and is the first full length study of those who attempt to deny the Holocaust. She recently decisively won a libel trial in London against David Irving, who sued her for calling him a Holocaust denier and right wing extremist in her book.
    [Show full text]
  • In an Academic Voice: Antisemitism and Academy Bias Kenneth Lasson University of Baltimore School of Law, [email protected]
    University of Baltimore Law ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law All Faculty Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 2011 In an Academic Voice: Antisemitism and Academy Bias Kenneth Lasson University of Baltimore School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Kenneth Lasson, In an Academic Voice: Antisemitism and Academy Bias, 3 J. Study of Antisemitism 349 (2011). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. In an Academic Voice: Antisemitism and Academy Bias Kenneth Lasson* Current events and the recent literature strongly suggest that antisemitism and anti-Zionism are often conflated and can no longer be viewed as distinct phenomena. The following paper provides an overview of con- temporary media and scholarship concerning antisemitic/anti-Zionist events and rhetoric on college campuses. This analysis leads to the con- clusion that those who are naive about campus antisemitism should exer- cise greater vigilance and be more aggressive in confronting the problem. Key Words: Antisemitism, Higher Education, Israel, American Jews In America, Jews feel very comfortable, but there are islands of anti- Semitism: the American college campus. —Natan Sharansky1 While universities like to nurture the perception that they are protec- tors of reasoned discourse, and indeed often perceive themselves as sacro- sanct places of culture in a chaotic world, the modern campus is, of course, not quite so wonderful.
    [Show full text]
  • Holocaust Education in America: Eichmann Trial to Schindler's List
    Madeline Waskowiak Holocaust Education in America: Eichmann Trial to Schindler’s List In the decades following World War Two, the Holocaust was not taught in American schools. Textbooks during the late 1940s and the 1950s scarcely included the atrocities committed against the Jews if there was any mention. The Holocaust, a term that was not yet used, came into American culture following the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in 1960. Following his kidnapping, televised trial, and later execution, American media brought the German atrocities to life. As more Americans learned about the Holocaust through survivor testimonies, popular culture, and scholarly research, education curriculum on the Holocaust developed. Holocaust education entered American schools as a response to growing public interest in the genocide of Europe’s Jews in correlation with the Eichmann trial, an increase in popular media and scholarly debate, and changing political relations with Israel. The Holocaust has been covered in-depth by historians and psychologists alike. The history of the Holocaust in America follows two main arguments; the first being why there was not more talk from Holocaust survivors after 1945, and what brought the Holocaust into American culture? The former is split between Holocaust victims suffering from extreme shock due to the atrocities they experienced and thus refused to talk about said experiences and the more popular argument among historians, that instead Holocaust survivors were quickly turned away. When this occurred has to do with Adolf Eichmann’s trial, the televised trial brought considerable public attention to the Holocaust. Hannah Arendt’s book Adolf Eichmann: Banality of Evil written on the trial spurred widespread scholarly debate and criticism which launched scholarly research by American historians.
    [Show full text]
  • Jamie Stern-Weiner Tis Ebook Edition Published by Verso 2019
    anti-semitism and the labour party Anti-Semitism and the Labour Party Edited by Jamie Stern-Weiner Tis ebook edition published by Verso 2019 All rights reserved Te moral rights of the authors have been asserted Verso UK: 6 Meard St, London, W1F 0EG US: 20 Jay St, Suite 1010, Brooklyn, NY 11201 versobooks.com Verso is the imprint of New Lef Books ISBN-13: 978-1-78960-671-3 ‘Corbyn Under Fire’ and ‘Te Never Ending Story’, © Daniel Finn 2018, frst appeared in Jacobin. ‘Jeremy Corbyn is an Anti-Racist, Not an Anti-Semite’ © Jospehn Finlay, 2019, frst appeared in Times of Israel. 'Smoke Without Fire: Te Myth of the 'Labour Antisemitism Crisis’ © Jamie Stern-Weiner and Alan Maddison, 2019. ‘Te Chimera of British Anti-Semitism (and How Not to Fight It if it Were Real)’, frst appeared on Verso Blog © Norman Finkelstein, 2019; ’60 Times Jeremy Corbyn Stood with Jewish People’ © @ToryFibs; ‘Briefng for Canvassers: Challenging false allegations of antisemitism’ and ‘Te Riverside Scandal’ with permission from Jewish Voice for Labour; ‘A Disinformation Campaign’ © Media Reform Coalition, 2019; ‘Te Fake News Nazi: Corbyn, Williamson and the Anti-Semitism Scandal’ from Medians © David Edwards, 2019; ‘Is the Guardian Institutionally Antisemitic?’ and ‘Labour Party Conference or Nuremberg Rally? Assessing the Evidence’ from author’s blog, © Jamie Stern-Weiner 2019; ‘Hue and Cry over the UCU’ © Richard Kuper 2019; with permission of OpenDemocracy; ‘Why the Labour Party Should Not Adopt the IHRA Defnition or Any Other Defnition of Antisemitism’ from author’s
    [Show full text]
  • 2006–07 Annual Report (PDF)
    What canI do? Can hatred be stopped? Will future generations remember the Holocaust? After the Holocaust, why can’t the world stop genocide? What canI do? Am I a bystander? A living memorial to the Holocaust, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum inspires leaders and citizens to confront hatred, prevent genocide, promote human dignity and strengthen democracy. Federal support guarantees the Museum’s permanent place on the National Mall, but its educational programs and global outreach are made possible by the generosity of donors nationwide through annual and legacy giving. 2006–07 | ANNUAL REPORT UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM ushmm.org 100 Raoul Wallenberg Place, SW Washington, DC 20024-2126 ushmm.org What must be done? What is the Museum’s role in the 21st century? What have we learned from history? From Our Leadership he crimes of the Holocaust were once described as “so calculated, so malignant, and Tso devastating that civilization cannot bear their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated.” How do we move from memory to action? When Justice Robert Jackson uttered these words at Nuremberg, could he have possibly imagined that six decades later his assertion would be a matter of doubt? These words marked what seemed to be a pivotal moment, a watershed in which all that followed would remain in the long shadow of the crime. There was a commitment to not ignore, to not repeat. Yet today, we must ask: Have we arrived at another pivotal moment in which the nature of the crime feels quite relevant, yet the commitment to prevent another human tragedy quite hollow? What must be done? What can we do as individuals? As institutions? | FROM OUR LEADERSHIP 1 For us the key question is: What is the role of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum? 2 | CONFRONTING ANTISEMITISM AND DENIAL 16 | PREVENTING GENOCIDE The Museum cannot eliminate evil and hatred.
    [Show full text]
  • Holocaust-Denial Literature: a Sixth Bibliography
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Publications and Research York College 2010 Holocaust-Denial Literature: A Sixth Bibliography John A. Drobnicki CUNY York College How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/yc_pubs/13 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] BffiLIOGRAPHY Holocaust-Denial Literature: A Sixth Bibliography John A. Drobnicki York College/CUNY This bibliography is a supplement to five earlier ones that were pub­ lished in the March 1994; December 1996, September 1998, December 2000, and September 2002 issues of the Bulletin of Bibliography, which has since ceased publication. During the intervening time, Holocaust denial has continued to be discussed in both the scholarly literature and the main­ stream press, especially during the trial resulting from the libel lawsuit filed by David Irving against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, and his sub­ sequent appeal of that verdict. The Holocaust deniers, who prefer to call themselves "revisionists" in an attempt to gain scholarly legitimacy, have refused to go away and have continued to take advantage of new media. Holocaust denial is a body of literature that seeks to prove that the Jewish Holocaust did not happen. Although individual deniers may have different motives and beliefs, they all share at least one point: that there was no systematic attempt by Nazi Germany to exterminate European Jewry. Hence they claim that the Holocaust is a hoax perpetrated by Jews (Zion­ ists) in an attempt to blackmail the rest of the world for sympathy, money, and legitimacy for the state of Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • David Greenberg
    DAVID GREENBERG Professor of History Professor of Journalism & Media Studies Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey 4 Huntington Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 646.504.5071 • [email protected] Education. Columbia University, New York, NY. PhD, History. 2001. MPhil, History. 1998. MA, History. 1996. Yale University, New Haven, CT. BA, History. 1990. Summa cum laude. Phi Beta Kappa. Distinction in the major. Academic Positions. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. Professor, Departments of History and Journalism & Media Studies. 2016- . Associate Professor, Departments of History and Journalism & Media Studies. 2008-2016. Assistant Professor, Department of Journalism & Media Studies. 2004-2008. Appointment to the Graduate Faculty, Department of History. 2004-2008. Affiliation with Department of Political Science. Affiliation with Department of Jewish Studies. Affiliation with Eagleton Institute of Politics. Columbia University, New York, NY. Visiting Associate Professor, Department of History, Spring 2014. Yale University, New Haven, CT. Lecturer, Department of History and Political Science. 2003-04. American Academy of Arts & Sciences, Cambridge MA. Visiting Scholar. 2002-03. Columbia University, New York, NY. Lecturer, Department of History. 2001-02. Teaching Assistant, Department of History. 1996-99. Greenberg, CV, p. 2. Other Journalism and Professional Experience. Politico Magazine. Columnist and Contributing Editor, 2015- The New Republic. Contributing Editor, 2006-2014. Moderator, “The Open University” blog, 2006-07. Acting Editor (with Peter Beinart), 1996. Managing Editor, 1994-95. Reporter-researcher, 1990-91. Slate Magazine. Contributing editor and founder of “History Lesson” column, the first regular history column by a professional historian in the mainstream media. 1998-2015. Staff editor, culture section, 1996-98. The New York Times.
    [Show full text]